Maureen Gentry v. State of Michigan

• Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 6, 2021
• Docket: 353174
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

MAUREEN GENTRY and BRUCE GENTRY, UNPUBLISHED May 6, 2021 Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v No. 353174 Court of Claims STATE OF MICHIGAN and DEPARTMENT OF LC No. 19-000137-MD TRANSPORTATION,

Defendants-Appellants.

Before: JANSEN, P.J., and RONAYNE KRAUSE and GADOLA, JJ.

RONAYNE KRAUSE, J. (concurring)

I concur with the majority. I write separately only because I note that plaintiff has expressed concern that Yono v Dep’t of Transp, 499 Mich 636; 885 NW2d 445 (2016), may have been wrongly decided and may warrant revisitation by our Supreme Court. We are, of course, bound by Yono. See Pellegrino v AMPCO Sys Parking, 486 Mich 330, 352-354; 785 NW2d 45 (2010). Nevertheless, I observe that the dissent in Yono expressed concern that “travel” was undefined, and that the majority in Yono was improperly restricting the meaning of the word. Yono, 499 Mich at 657-670.

I am also troubled by my inability to find a clear definition for what “traveling” means within the context of the highway exception. Black’s Law Dictionary provides no such definition, and Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary provides a wide variety of possible definitions, ranging from general movement to specifically going from place to place. Participating in a parade clearly entails movement, but its primary purpose would seem to be entertainment rather than transit. In Duffy v DNR, 490 Mich 198, 213-216; 805 NW2d 399 (2011), our Supreme Court seems to have implied that recreational uses are not road uses. However, I find no clear holding to that effect applicable to these circumstances. Furthermore, if “traveling” means generally any kind of movement, then areas set aside for parallel parking would seem to be included. Furthermore, the portion of the buffer zone in which plaintiff fell was the widened area in line with the parallel parking lanes at a street intersection; even if drivers are not supposed to drive through that area, the allegedly deteriorated paint demarking the area could mean that they nevertheless do so.

-1- I respectfully believe it would be helpful to the bench and bar for our Supreme Court to provide clarity in this matter. I therefore respectfully urge our Supreme Court to consider plaintiff’s argument that Yono was wrongly decided. Nevertheless, under the law as it is, I fully concur with the majority.

/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause

-2-